On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 01:09:06PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 10:55:24AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 11:55 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > @Alexander Duyck, please update me if I can add your ROB tag again > > > to the series, because you liked v6 more. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Changelog > > > v7: > > > * Rebase on top v5.12-rc1 > > > * More english fixes > > > * Returned to static sysfs creation model as was implemented in v0/v1. <...> > 2) Should a VF sysfs file use the PF to implement this? > > Can you elaborate on your idea here? I guess > pci_iov_sysfs_link() makes a "virtfnX" link from the PF to the > VF, and you're thinking we could also make a "virtfnX_msix_count" > in the PF directory? That's a really interesting idea. I want to remind that we are talking about mlx5 devices that support upto 255 VFs and they indeed are used to their limits. So seeing 255 links of virtfnX_msix_count in the same directory looks too much unpleasant to me. Thanks
